Just watched the Shuttle Shuttle (NASA911) take off from KSKF on its way to KCBM. This is the first time I've seen it, quite impressive.

Here's a pic (not mine) of its approach earlier this morning...

And more pics from its blog...

It was in El Paso earlier today...

Cheers! M2

Cool pix man...I think it'd be crazy to fly an airplane with basically another airplane strapped to the roof.

Kinda looks like these two doesn't it????????

I didn't know it was in town! I was actually at Lackland this morning, but wasn't near the flightline, so I didn't notice. Now I'm bummed I didn't check it out. I suppose that's what I get for not paying attention.

I got a picture of it here at CAFB.

Pretty weird to watch...and a very shallow climb out angle.

Posted a few pics in the gallery, I probably took about 100. This truly was a once in a lifetime opportunity to see this thing land and takeoff at CBM.

Gallery

Edited June 3, 200916 yr by c17wannabe

I'm assuming it stops so much for fuel, but a 747 with some (Ok a lot) extra drag can't make it from SKF to FL?

(Unless the extra weight greatly restricts the fuel load)

Maybe a dumb question...maybe someone has some insight

The shuttle adds a shitload of drag to the 747, along with all its weight too.

I wonder though how much additional lift gets generated thought - it's a massive lifting body attached to the back...

I'm assuming it stops so much for fuel, but a 747 with some (Ok a lot) extra drag can't make it from SKF to FL?

(Unless the extra weight greatly restricts the fuel load)

Maybe a dumb question...maybe someone has some insight

Not sure of the weather that day, but the 747/shuttle combo has to have clear air to fly. The shuttle tiles can be damaged if they fly through rain. So, they may do a zig-zag across the country trying to get to KSC while avoiding/waiting out cloud cover and rain.

the shuttle falls like a brick, so I wouldn't exactly call it a lifting body...

the shuttle falls like a brick, so I wouldn't exactly call it a lifting body...

Yeah, it drops out of the sky about as fast as the credibility of Major Jill Metzgar.....

Yeah, it drops out of the sky about as fast as the credibility of Major Jill Metzgar.....

ZING!

From: https://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sh...arrier_Aircraft

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposes fuel and altitude penalties. The range is reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km), requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA has an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 with the orbiter attached. It takes a crew of about 170 a week to prepare the shuttle and SCA for flight.

Edited June 3, 200916 yr by Spoo

the shuttle falls like a brick, so I wouldn't exactly call it a lifting body...

Not true. While the shuttle is obviously not a long-range glider, its winged design is all about lift generation. I'm not saying it provides positive lift excess to its weight atop the 747, but it's not just dead weight/drag, either. I had the chance to talk to a couple of the NASA pilots when I was stationed at Edwards, they said they hate flying the SCA w/o the orbiter attached: "It flies like crap."

All the issues others have cited (weight, drag, clear wx requirements) notwithstanding, there's also the PR aspect to the multiple-hop model. NASA normally always announces where/when the SCA will be landing, and there are frequently fly-bys, etc., w/ any given leg of the trip.

Edited June 3, 200916 yr by Jughead

Here are some of my pics...

That last pics is all the people who lined Military Drive to watch the takeofff.

And here are two videos, my camera doesn't do that will with long distances...

I wonder how they get that shuttle tail fairing pod back to Edwards? It looks too big to stuff back in the 747...Super Guppy, perhaps?

NASA still uses a Super Guppy, but I believe it's used to move the external fuel tank components around. It came through Altus quite a bit while I was there, during hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I was at El Paso stopping for some fuel a while back when we looked up and saw it coming in on final to Fort Bliss. It was quite the sight and quite the surprise. By the time we got some food and took off, we could hear their call sign over departure. We only took off a few minutes after it and decided to change our VFR leg a bit to get close enough to check out NASA911 in flight without raising a few alert flags. We were heading east and it seemed they were going pretty slow and didn't really go over 11000'-13500' while they were cruising (at least the 30 min we saw them). This might add another reason they have to stop so much with their fuel burning and altitude limits. It was defin awesome to see!

Here's a bit of NASA dork humor on 911:

This may be a dumb question, but who gets to fly the SCA? Is it a process like AF One or is it as simple as putting it on your ADP?

NASA test pilots

I had the chance to talk to a couple of the NASA pilots when I was stationed at Edwards, they said they hate flying the SCA w/o the orbiter attached: "It flies like crap."

Interesting. Every pilot with 747 time that I've ever talked to has said what a great-flying aircraft the 747 is.

Interesting. Every pilot with 747 time that I've ever talked to has said what a great-flying aircraft the 747 is.

And I'm sure an unmodified 747 is a great-flying airplane.

And I'm sure an unmodified 747 is a great-flying airplane.

Ya think???

Serious question:

In your opinion, what causes the modified 747 SCA to fly "like crap"?

The mount brackets (for lack of a better term) the Orbiter sits on aren't all that big. Sure they're gonna cause some drag, but enough to cause crappy handling? It's not like they're asymmetrical.

The added vertical stab area causes some drag too, but should give increased yaw stability, yes? Probably adds more weathervaning effect (I can't think of the proper pilot-term right now) in a crosswind situation.

Looking at the pics in this thread, pics in other places, and some Googling, those 2 things appear to be the only major external changes to the SCA from a "stock" 747.

** OK, a little more Googling resulted in this. One of the pilots is quoted as saying the SCA flies similarly to a stock 747... which flies in the face of what Jughead heard.

I was gonna say that it's modified inside and out in order to be able to handle that huge external load. There's only a few rows of seats still in it on the top section behind the cockpit, the rest is bare. I don't know how much that would change the way a 747 flew.. Who knows...

I was gonna say that it's modified inside and out in order to be able to handle that huge external load.

Kinda' like your mom.

Kinda' like your mom.

Nice....